Do we give the wingback formation a try for league games?

Heam44

Heam44

Well-known member
It certainly improved us defensively, conceding only 1 goal in 180 mins against premier league opposition.

Of course we’d still retain a significant attacking threat against championship teams.

Definitely worth looking at in my opinion.
 
I think we tried it against Villa because we knew for last nights game our available personnel leant itself to playing that formation, so we used the Villa game as a bit of a trial. Once the wide players are available again I think we'll go back to 4231. Especially if Bangura is injured.
 
I'm not sure it's the formation so much as the tactics. We've stayed much more compact, had both central midfielders shielding the defence and been prepared to concede possession. In fact, after Bangura went off we seemed to revert to 4 at the back with Jones acting more as an orthodox winger but kept the defensive tactics.

I think this is largely what Ipswich do when they play away; set up much more defensively. The question for Carrick and co is how can they take the best parts of the defensive work we have done in the last two matches and adapt it to playing against Millwall? Millwall are presently in decent form, so there's definitely a case for tweaking our away tactics to be significantly more defensive.
 
Bruce said:
In fact, after Bangura went off we seemed to revert to 4 at the back with Jones acting more as an orthodox winger but kept the defensive tactics.
Click to expand...
I don't think we did. Jones barely got out of our half in the second half. Carrick also said himself the subs were like for like and it didn't change the shape. (Obviously Engel shifted across to Bangura's position and Clarke slotted in to Engel's position)
 
We are doing what we have to due to injuries. We have more CBs fit than other positions so it makes sense to play an extra CB than a kid with no experience as an attacker. With Hackney and now O'Brien back we've got more midfielders so might make sense to go 433, especially as one of our options at LWB, Bangura, is now injured. Although we now have Azaz, Rogers and Greenwood available we aren't as light in those positions but we're running out of strikers again.

If Carrick can play the 4231 we usually play then I would assume that's what we will play.
 
Nano said:
We are doing what we have to due to injuries. We have more CBs fit than other positions so it makes sense to play an extra CB than a kid with no experience as an attacker. With Hackney and now O'Brien back we've got more midfielders so might make sense to go 433, especially as one of our options at LWB, Bangura, is now injured. Although we now have Azaz, Rogers and Greenwood available we aren't as light in those positions but we're running out of strikers again.

If Carrick can play the 4231 we usually play then I would assume that's what we will play.
Click to expand...
I don't agree.

He could have just as easily played 4-2-3-1 with the same players last night and players playing in the same positions as they have most of the season except Hackney. But he has used him as LAM previously last season. He had even more options on Saturday against Villa to make his normal formation work. He changed the formation strategically to nullify Premier League opposition.


-------------Glover-------------

VDB----Fry------Clarke---Engel

----Howson-----Barlaser------

Jones-----Crooks------Hackney

----------Lath/Coburn----------
 
Heam44 said:
What formation did we play?
Click to expand...

Started with 5 4 1, then after Bangura got injured we stayed with a 5 until half time though Engel didn't get forward as much as Bangura, after half time we played 4 5 1, with 4 central midfielders and Jones as an outlet on the right.
 
B_G said:
I don't agree.

He could have just as easily played 4-2-3-1 with the same players last night and players playing in the same positions as they have most of the season except Hackney. But he has used him as LAM previously last season. He had even more options on Saturday against Villa to make his normal formation work. He changed the formation strategically to nullify Premier League opposition.


-------------Glover-------------

VDB----Fry------Clarke---Engel

----Howson-----Barlaser------

Jones-----Crooks------Hackney

----------Lath/Coburn----------
Click to expand...
It wasn't a one-off game though. We've had weeks of these players playing multiple games a week. They are all knackered. Playing 5 at the back and a low block allows less running. I wouldn't have been surprised if we would have changed things a bit differently if we hadn't have been forced through injuries.

Also, in the 2nd half we were playing 442 more than 5 at the back. We played with that 4 at the back with Jones and Hackney defending ahead of VDB/Engel and only Crooks and Coburn high up.
 
Nano said:
It wasn't a one-off game though. We've had weeks of these players playing multiple games a week. They are all knackered. Playing 5 at the back and a low block allows less running. I wouldn't have been surprised if we would have changed things a bit differently if we hadn't have been forced through injuries.

Also, in the 2nd half we were playing 442 more than 5 at the back. We played with that 4 at the back with Jones and Hackney defending ahead of VDB/Engel and only Crooks and Coburn high up.
Click to expand...
It still looked like 5 at the back to me. VDB was pulling out wider to help Jones because Mudryk was pulling out wide.

Hackney did drop deeper into mid-field though.

It was more like 5-3-1-1 in the second half.

--------------Glover---------------

----VDB -----Fry-----Clarke------
Jones-----------------------Engel
----Howson-Barlaser-Hackney----
------------Crooks----------------




------------Coburn----------------
 
Not sure, I think it's a specific approach for specific opponents - i.e. those, on paper at least, who are far better than us.

I think we'll revert to type in the league but could be useful in big games (play off semi/final) going forward.
 
  • Like
Reactions: B_G
Away goals being leaked is where it's needed as we're way too porous .. I'd be tempted to go with it on Saturday and see how it goes with the option to go to the usual if needed ..
 
Rauko said:
Away goals being leaked is where it's needed as we're way too porous .. I'd be tempted to go with it on Saturday and see how it goes with the option to go to the usual if needed ..
Click to expand...
Plus, our defence and midfield are going to be pretty low on reserves so it might make sense to try and see out the game with a low block. On the plus side we'll have Rogers, Greenwood and Azaz who should all be reasonably fresh and able to offer a threat on the counter. If Ayling starts there'll be an element of keeping it simple because he won't have had long to train with the rest of the team.
 
I think we've been really fluid these last two cup games and switching between 3-4-1-1 and 4-2-3-1. Will be interesting to see how we start on Saturday, but as I said in the Millwall team thread, I think a few will get a rest. Some have played a lot of football over the last few weeks, more out of necessity, rather than choice.
 
I love the formation for a difficult game where we need to be defensive - but when all our players come back/are fit again, too many attacking players are left out...

Jones - RVDB - Fry - Clarke - Engel/Bangura
You'd have to play Howson/Barlasar/O'Brien as CDM in my opinion (Hackney would have to go further up).

Then for the 2 midfield positions we'd have... Hackney, McGree, Rogers, Azaz, Crooks, Greenwood - no real place for Silvera either unless we played him as wingback.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top